IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i20p9017-d1769190.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Expert Credibility Factors and Their Impact on Digital Innovation and Sustainability Adoption in China’s Social Media Ecosystem

Author

Listed:
  • Shasha Li

    (School of Humanities, Chang’an University, Xi’an 710061, China)

  • Chao Gao

    (School of International Relations and Public Affairs, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433, China
    School of Engineering and Design, Technical University of Munich, 80333 Munich, Germany)

Abstract

The successful implementation of digital transformation initiatives depends critically on public trust in experts guiding these processes. In today’s digital media environment, expert trust faces significant challenges, potentially hindering sustainable innovation adoption. This study investigates how expert credibility dimensions and information characteristics shape trust in digital transformation experts among Chinese social media users. We employed a mixed-methods approach combining a survey of 850 Chinese social media users, a quasi-experiment testing a digital expert verification feature, and secondary data analysis. The study measured multiple dimensions of expert trust while examining relationships with expert cognition factors and media usage variables through regression, mediation, and structural equation modeling. Expert trust in digital transformation exists at moderate levels ( M = 6.82/10), with higher trust in digital innovation research ( M = 7.12) than specific sustainability recommendations ( M = 6.59). Expert authenticity emerged as the strongest predictor of trust ( β = 0.27), followed by professional competence ( β = 0.21). A “digital exposure paradox” emerged whereby higher volumes of expert information negatively predicted trust ( β = −0.18), while information quality positively predicted trust ( β = 0.25). The digital verification feature causally enhanced trust (DID = 0.57), with institutional sources strengthening trust while user-generated content diminished it. The findings reveal that digital transformation expert trust involves multi-dimensional evaluations beyond traditional credibility assessments. The “digital exposure paradox” suggests that prioritizing information quality over quantity, demonstrating expert authenticity, and implementing verification mechanisms can enhance trust and accelerate sustainable digital transformation adoption.

Suggested Citation

  • Shasha Li & Chao Gao, 2025. "Expert Credibility Factors and Their Impact on Digital Innovation and Sustainability Adoption in China’s Social Media Ecosystem," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-34, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:20:p:9017-:d:1769190
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/20/9017/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/20/9017/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anne Reif & Tim Kneisel & Markus Schäfer & Monika Taddicken, 2020. "Why Are Scientific Experts Perceived as Trustworthy? Emotional Assessment within TV and YouTube Videos," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(1), pages 191-205.
    2. Katherine A. McComas & Craig W. Trumbo, 2001. "Source Credibility in Environmental Health – Risk Controversies: Application of Meyer's Credibility Index," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(3), pages 467-480, June.
    3. Anne Reif & Tim Kneisel & Markus Schäfer & Monika Taddicken, 2020. "Why Are Scientific Experts Perceived as Trustworthy? Emotional Assessment within TV and YouTube Videos," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(1), pages 191-205.
    4. Bennich, Amelie, 2024. "The digital imperative: Institutional pressures to digitalise," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    5. Lynn Frewer & Steve Hunt & Mary Brennan & Sharron Kuznesof & Mitchell Ness & Chris Ritson, 2003. "The views of scientific experts on how the public conceptualize uncertainty," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 75-85, January.
    6. Richard Van Noorden, 2014. "Online collaboration: Scientists and the social network," Nature, Nature, vol. 512(7513), pages 126-129, August.
    7. Steven Van de Walle & Koen Migchelbrink, 2022. "Institutional quality, corruption, and impartiality: the role of process and outcome for citizen trust in public administration in 173 European regions," Journal of Economic Policy Reform, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(1), pages 9-27, January.
    8. Ragnar Lofstedt, 2013. "Communicating Food Risks in an Era of Growing Public Distrust: Three Case Studies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(2), pages 192-202, February.
    9. Alison Legood & Lisa van der Werff & Allan Lee & Deanne den Hartog & Daan van Knippenberg, 2023. "A Critical Review of the Conceptualization, Operationalization, and Empirical Literature on Cognition‐Based and Affect‐Based Trust," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(2), pages 495-537, March.
    10. Dominic Balog‐Way & Katherine McComas & John Besley, 2020. "The Evolving Field of Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2240-2262, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sullivan, Daniel & Schmitt, Harrison J. & Calloway, Eric E. & Clausen, Whitney & Tucker, Pamela & Rayman, Jamie & Gerhardstein, Ben, 2021. "Chronic environmental contamination: A narrative review of psychosocial health consequences, risk factors, and pathways to community resilience," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    2. Daniela De Filippo & Fernanda Morillo & Borja González-Albo, 2023. "Measuring the Impact and Influence of Scientific Activity in the Humanities and Social Sciences," Publications, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-17, June.
    3. Shannon Mason & Yusuke Sakurai, 2021. "A ResearchGate-way to an international academic community?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1149-1171, February.
    4. Simone Belli & Carlos Gonzalo-Penela, 2020. "Science, research, and innovation infospheres in Google results of the Ibero-American countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(2), pages 635-653, May.
    5. Song, Qi & Guo, Yuxuan & Ren, Qiqi & Ren, Yingwei & Lv, Hui & Ma, Ruotong & Gan, Yujing, 2025. "Energizing, yet tiring: The dual impact of felt trust on employee creativity and work-to-family conflict," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    6. Xiaoqin Zhu & Xiaofei Xie, 2015. "Effects of Knowledge on Attitude Formation and Change Toward Genetically Modified Foods," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(5), pages 790-810, May.
    7. Mazarakis, Athanasios & Peters, Isabella, 2015. "Quo Vadis German Scholarly Communication in Economics?," EconStor Conference Papers 110679, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    8. Rîndașu Sînziana-Maria & Ionescu-Feleagă Liliana & Ionescu Bogdan-Ștefan & Radu Valentin, 2025. "The Role of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Shaping Business Innovation: Insights from End Users’ Perspectives and Practices," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment Journal, De Gruyter, vol. 19(1), pages 1-24.
    9. Sergio Copiello, 2019. "Research Interest: another undisclosed (and redundant) algorithm by ResearchGate," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(1), pages 351-360, July.
    10. Martin-Martin, Alberto & Orduna-Malea, Enrique & Harzing, Anne-Wil & Delgado López-Cózar, Emilio, 2017. "Can we use Google Scholar to identify highly-cited documents?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 152-163.
    11. Yan, Weiwei & Zhang, Yin, 2018. "Research universities on the ResearchGate social networking site: An examination of institutional differences, research activity level, and social networks formed," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 385-400.
    12. Chiara Mio & Marco Fasan & Carlo Marcon & Silvia Panfilo, 2022. "Exploring Corporate Crisis Communication after COVID-19: The Role of Enterprise Risk Management in (Re)Building Trust," Working Papers 05, Venice School of Management - Department of Management, Università Ca' Foscari Venezia.
    13. Schilke, Oliver & Reimann, Martin, 2025. "The transparency dilemma: How AI disclosure erodes trust," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    14. Hunter Bennett & Flynn Slattery, 2023. "Graphical abstracts are associated with greater Altmetric attention scores, but not citations, in sport science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(6), pages 3793-3804, June.
    15. Liwei Zhang & Jue Wang, 2021. "What affects publications’ popularity on Twitter?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(11), pages 9185-9198, November.
    16. Wesley Mendes-Da-Silva, 2018. "The Promotion of Transparency and the Impact of Research on Business," RAC - Revista de Administração Contemporânea (Journal of Contemporary Administration), ANPAD - Associação Nacional de Pós-Graduação e Pesquisa em Administração, vol. 22(4), pages 639-649.
    17. Martín-Martín, Alberto & Orduna-Malea, Enrique & Delgado López-Cózar, Emilio, 2018. "Author-level metrics in the new academic profile platforms: The online behaviour of the Bibliometrics community," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 494-509.
    18. Shenmeng Xu & Houqiang Yu & Bradley M. Hemminger & Xie Dong, 2018. "Who, what, why? An exploration of JoVE scientific video publications in tweets," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(2), pages 845-856, November.
    19. Mike Thelwall, 2021. "Measuring Societal Impacts Of Research With Altmetrics? Common Problems And Mistakes," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(5), pages 1302-1314, December.
    20. repec:hal:wpaper:hal-02728160 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Weina Liu & Chaonan Xu & Yajie Peng & Xinlong Xu, 2023. "Evolution of Tourism Risk Communication: A Bibliometric Analysis and Meta-Analysis of the Antecedents of Communicating Risk to Tourists," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-31, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:20:p:9017-:d:1769190. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.